BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 226|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 226
Author: Ruskin (D)
Amended: 7/23/09 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE NATURAL RES. & WATER COMMITTEE : 7-4, 6/23/09
AYES: Pavley, Kehoe, Leno, Padilla, Simitian, Wiggins,
Wolk
NOES: Cogdill, Benoit, Hollingsworth, Huff
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE : 3-2, 7/14/09
AYES: Corbett, Florez, Leno
NOES: Harman, Walters
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 13-0, 8/17/09
AYES: Kehoe, Cox, Corbett, Denham, Hancock, Leno, Oropeza,
Price, Runner, Walters, Wolk, Wyland, Yee
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 47-31, 6/1/09 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : California Coastal Act of 1976: enforcement
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill imposes a minimum penalty and
increases the maximum penalty for violations of the Coastal
Act. The bill allows the Coastal Commission to impose
administrative civil penalties for violations of the
Coastal Act. The bill also ends the current practice of
transferring penalty revenues to the Coastal Conservancy
CONTINUED
AB 226
Page
2
and instead allows those revenues to be used by the Coastal
Commission for enforcement activities.
ANALYSIS : Existing law, the California Coastal Act,
authorizes the Coastal Commission, after a public hearing,
to issue a cease and desist order if it determines that
someone is undertaking or threatening to undertake any
activity that requires a Coastal Development Permit or that
may be inconsistent with a previously issued permit.
Existing law permits a superior court to impose civil
liability of up to $30,000 on any person or local
government who performs or undertakes development that is
in violation of the Act or inconsistent with a coastal
development permit, local coastal program, or certified
port master plan, as specified. Additional penalties of
not less than $1,000 a day, but not more than $15,000 per
day may be imposed for violations that are deemed
intentional and knowing.
Existing law provides that funds received from the payment
of a penalty are to be deposited into the Violation
Remediation Account of the Coastal Conservancy Fund, until
appropriated by the Legislature, for purposes of carrying
out the Act.
Existing law establishes the Coastal Act Services fund, to
be administered by the Commission. The moneys in the fund,
upon appropriation by the Legislature, shall be expended to
enforce the Coastal Act and to provide services to local
government, permit applicants, public agencies, and the
public participating in the implementation of this
division.
This bill:
1.Allows the Commission to impose an administrative civil
penalty of not less than $5,000, but not more than
$50,000, for each violation of the Act. Those penalties
must be imposed by a majority vote of the commissioners
present in a duly noticed public hearing.
2.Provides that in determining the amount of civil
liability, the commission shall take into account the
AB 226
Page
3
following factors: (1) the nature, circumstance, extent,
and gravity of the situation; (2) whether the violation
is susceptible to restoration or other remedial measures;
(3) the sensitivity of the resource affected by the
violation; and (4) the cost to the state of bringing an
action.
3.Provides that a person shall not be subject to both
monetary civil liability under the provisions added by
this bill and monetary civil liability imposed by a
superior court for the same act or failure to act. This
bill further provide that if a person who is assessed a
penalty under this bill fails to pay the administrative
penalty, otherwise fails to comply with a restoration or
cease and desist order issued in connection with the
penalty action, or challenges any of these actions by the
commission in a court of law, the commission may maintain
an action or otherwise engage in judicial proceedings to
enforce those requirements and the court may order
relief, as specified.
4.Provides that if a person fails to pay a penalty imposed
by the Commission, the Commission may record a lien on
the property in the amount of the penalty assessed by the
Commission. That lien shall have the force, effect, and
priority of a judgment lien.
5.Defines "person" as not including local governments,
special districts, or agencies thereof when acting in
their legislative or adjudicative capacities.
6.Codifies that it is not the intent of the Legislature
that unintentional, minor violations that only cause de
minimus harm should lead to civil penalties, if the
violator has acted expeditiously to correct the violation
consistent with the Act.
7.Provides that all funds received from the payment of a
penalty shall be deposited in the Coastal Act Services
Fund, until appropriated by the Legislature, for the
purpose of carrying out the Act.
Background
AB 226
Page
4
The California Coastal Commission, initially created by
voter initiative and permanently established by the
California Coastal Act of 1976, seeks to protect the
state's natural and scenic resources along the California
coast. The Commission's primary responsibility is to
implement the provisions of the Act, including regulation
of development in the coastal zone; the commission's core
program activities include issuing and enforcing permits
for coastal development.
This bill implements several recommendations made by the
Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) in its analysis of the
2008-09 Budget Bill relating to the Coastal Commission.
That LAO report stated:
Currently, in order for the commission to issue a fine
or penalty, the commission must file a case in the
superior court. This process is cumbersome and
results in few fines and penalties issued by the
commission due to the high cost of pursuing
enforcement through the courts. This, in turn, is
reflected in the commission's budget where enforcement
fines and penalty revenues remain stable at $150,000,
with no change from the current year. By contrast,
based on our review of other state and local
regulatory agencies in the resources area, those which
administratively assess fines/penalties tend to have
this as a growing source of support for their
enforcement activities?.
We further recommend the enactment of legislation
enabling the commission to issue fines and penalties
directly for enforcement actions, rather than through
the court process, as an additional means to stabilize
funds available to the commission?.
?[I]n order that permit fee and penalty revenues
collected by the commission can be used to support the
commission's permitting and enforcement activities, we
also recommend the enactment of legislation to delete
the current law requirement that these revenues be
transferred to [State Coastal Conservancy] for
purposes of developing and maintaining coastal public
access.
AB 226
Page
5
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12
Fund
Coastal Commission Minor savings General
enforcement costs
Attorney General Minor savings General
enforcement costs
Coastal Commission Increased revenues, up to $1,000 per
year Special *
revenues
Coastal Conservancy Reduced
revenues, up to $500 per year Special **
revenues
* Coastal Act Services Fund.
** State Coastal Conservancy Fund.
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/27/09)
California Coast Keeper Alliance
California Coastal Commission
Environment California
Environmental Defense Center
Green California
Heal the Bay
Natural Resources Defense Council
Ocean Conservancy
Planning and Conservation League
San Diego Coast keeper
Sierra Club
OPPOSITION : (Verified 8/27/09)
American Council of Engineering Companies of California
California Association of Realtors
California Building Industry Association
California Business Properties Association
California Chamber of Commerce
AB 226
Page
6
California Land Title Association
California Manufacturers and Technology Association
Half Moon Bay Chamber of Commerce
Industrial Environmental Association
Irvine Chamber of Commerce
Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce
Majestic Realty Co.
The Thursday Group
Union Pacific Railroad
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Ammiano, Arambula, Beall, Blumenfield, Brownley,
Buchanan, Caballero, Charles Calderon, Carter, Chesbro,
Coto, Davis, De La Torre, De Leon, Eng, Evans, Feuer,
Fong, Fuentes, Furutani, Hall, Hayashi, Hernandez, Hill,
Huffman, Jones, Krekorian, Lieu, Bonnie Lowenthal, Ma,
Mendoza, Monning, Nava, John A. Perez, Portantino, Price,
Ruskin, Salas, Saldana, Skinner, Solorio, Swanson,
Torlakson, Torres, Torrico, Yamada, Bass
NOES: Adams, Anderson, Bill Berryhill, Tom Berryhill,
Blakeslee, Conway, Cook, DeVore, Duvall, Emmerson,
Fletcher, Fuller, Gaines, Galgiani, Garrick, Gilmore,
Hagman, Harkey, Huber, Jeffries, Knight, Logue, Miller,
Nestande, Niello, Nielsen, Silva, Smyth, Audra
Strickland, Tran, Villines
NO VOTE RECORDED: Block, V. Manuel Perez
JA:nl 9/1/09 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****